last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications."

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation."

While I weep for this once great nation, I laugh at the naive individuals who fell for this personality. You were willingly duped and you know it.

I did not know that there was a fine for not filling it out. Even so I'm plan on following suit. The .gov has already proven they can't be trusted w/ even the most basic of information. Why should I make it any easier for them?

For American gun owners, the battle will be to make sure that politicians who see an opportunity to advance their gun ban agenda do not use Mexico as an excuse tosacrifice our Second Amendment rights.

And that's exactly it. Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarmann don't care about Mexico. Neither do Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Kerry et al . What they care about is using any method they can to restrict firearm ownership here.

NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation.For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands.But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics.One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate."That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply.Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice.Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent.There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney.NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information.Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:

Chicago is touting a drop of 7.9% in crime in comparison to the same time period last year. Looking at the numbers shows the usual 'fun with statistics' that is so common along w/ numbers changing. Beyond the fact that the majority of the drop is in motor vehicle theft, let's take a look at a few others"

Between January and May, murder is down 11.4% in comparison to last year. Sounds good right? Yet last month (April) it was down 18.7%. This change is due to the 47 murders in Chicago in the month of May, 4 more than in May of '08. There is also one less murder listed on the '09 report than on the '08.

Criminal Sexual assault from Jan through May reported 579 incidents on the '08 report but the '09 report shows 608 for the same period. That would be an increase of 6% instead of the 1% shown.

So in one month, Chicago went back on par with '07. If the levels remain stable from now on, they're looking at over 450 murders (mostly gang related) in their 'gun free' paradise. If May's trend continues, they could easily equal or even break last years spiked numbers.

Seven months ago I made a post about another anti-gun organization claiming "they weren't after our guns". Really they weren't. They just quote bogus statistics and receive support from a bunch or organizations that ARE working towards the elimination of private ownership.

Well their chief talking head, Laura Eshelman, Googled her name today and discovered the post so she (assuming it's really her) decided to reply in typical anti fashion:

Oh, give it a rest. You guys are always so darn uptight and angry- perhaps while you're ranting and raving about liberty restrictions, you should consider lobbying for marijuana legalization. It's been proven to be effective in many cases for stress reduction; I'm sure it would make even the most virulent of you gun nuts a little bit nicer (and less likely to get pissed off and shoot innocent people).-Laura Eshelman

Funny that instead of replying to the cited and sourced criticisms, she resorts to stereotyping and insults. No surprise really. It's all they have.

I'm sure she would really love for us to 'take a rest' because it would give them a chance to return to the echo chambers they once enjoyed. Discourse is anathema to them.

Feel free to stop on by anytime Laura, I always appreciate such 'progressive' posts from my opposition.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Since you're the ones funding the violent radicals on your flank, you need to stop sending them money. Since you know far more about their activities than any one else, you need to be the ones who turn them in. Since you're the ones who make heroes and martyrs out of them, you need to be the ones who call them out as criminals. Until you do this -- consistently, wholeheartedly, and responsibly -- we can only conclude that these assassins are operating with your support and approval...

Now this doesn't come from 'rightwing' extremists talking about Muslims like we heard following 9/11, that would be stereotyping and wrong. Instead it comes from our favorite "Social Futurist" Sara Robinson, via War on Guns, blaming all 'conservatives' for the actions of a few deranged psychopaths. Then it's perfectly acceptable to stereotype. Those of you who read Smallest Minority will remember her previous loonbat tirades.

I wonder if Sara would apply her above statement to 'liberals' and the terrorist actions of 'left-wing' domestic terrorists like ALF and ELF which are financially supported by PETA?

Oh but that's different.

I wonder if she has ANY clue how close she really is to those 'right-wing conservatives' she wholeheartedly and so regularly condemns?

Thieves broke into five U.S. Forest Service Police vehicles as the officers slept at an Albuquerque hotel, taking off with several high-powered rifles, laptops and radios.

So by the logic of Mayors Bloomburg and Daley, this is clear evidence that requirements for firearm possession are not strict enough on law enforcement and need to be strengthened immediately. I'm sure just one more 'common-sense' and 'reasonable' law would have stopped these incidents in their tracks.